In this article, the authors critically examine the way discourse enters into and becomes embedded in transformative learning theory, especially from the extrarational or depth psychology perspective. The authors begin by providing an overview of how transformative learning theory has developed in diverse directions, including the extrarational approach. In this latter perspective, concepts from depth psychology tend to be used to describe transformative learning, without there being a critical analysis or a common understanding of the meaning of these concepts. By treating knowledge about transformative learning as practical knowledge (from the perspective of Habermas’s framework), the authors are able to critically question the knowledge claims inherent in the discourse within the extrarational approach to transformative learning theory development.
Formal courses in adult education are most often housed within schools or faculties that include other disciplines such as teacher education, psychology, or training and development. Adult educators teaching these courses may feel obligated to follow the procedures and practices of the institution as well as of the programs with which they are associated. This creates a set of paradoxes and conflicts that are rarely addressed. Adult educators working in formal contexts teach about critical pedagogy and democratic practices without engaging in those practices themselves. This article advocates a participatory learning model based on the historical foundations of adult education theory and practice. The authors explore teaching as a subversive activity, hegemony, critical pedagogy, and power relations. The authors then discuss implications for practice in formal contexts.
In this chapter, we examine how individuals are uncritically assimilating assumptions surrounding war at today’s historical juncture, such as war or violence is a “reality,” “war is necessary,” and “war is always going to be with us.” As a result, humans’ (victims’) lives are devalued in such a way that they have become passive or active perpetrators of today’s permanent war culture. We describe what can and should be done to turn this perspective upside down, and, ultimately, to work toward peace. We turn to transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1978, 1991, 2000) to ground our writing, and to help us critically question the embedded assumptions that feed and reinforce militaristic and violent behaviors when disputes and conflicts arise. Not only do these assumptions drive the curriculum and program decision making in education, but they structure adults’ daily lives. In adulthood, when we encounter points of view that are discrepant with our own or have experiences that shock us into reexamining our beliefs, we have the agency to critically question our prior beliefs which, in turn, can lead us to revise our beliefs and act on those revisions. Through challenging activities, participatory teaching and learning, critical self-reflection, arts-based experiences, debate and discourse, adult educators strive to help learners revise their perspectives. They want their students open to diverse viewpoints and able to justify why they hold such ideals.
This qualitative study utilized the method of narrative analysis to explore the counter-learning process of an oppressed Kurdish woman from Turkey. Critical constructivism was utilized to analyze counter-learning; Frankfurt School—based Marcusian critical theory was used to analyze the sociopolitical context and its impact on the oppressed. Key issues for adult education theory and practice are highlighted.
This paper strives to reconstruct the digital divide discourse from a Gramscian perspective in relation to educators’ role in cultural force in the process of hegemonic dominance. Educators either serve the interest of ruling elites and help the maintenance of ideological hegemony or counter-serve hegemonic forces by breaking the cycle of dehumanization and oppression. In essence, the digital divide discourse and its popularization were perceived as a product of ideological hegemony. In order to analyze the digital divide discourse, this paper looked at the current literature related to digital divide, and then examined technology’s historical relations with the hegemonic power structure. The contemporary United States society and its dominant discourse on the digital divide and how other social determinants related to the class structure are being ignored in the process of approaching this social problem are also analyzed. Finally the paper discussed how educators need to deal with and challenge educational inequities in the new alteration process of hegemonic structure that has a strong dialectical relation with the new technological advancement. This discussion is one attempt to participate in its rearrangement.